SwiftVets.com

[lthrneck]

Why do the Republicans even bother with debates? If you look at the history it's not the message it's the way it's delivered that counts and ultimately sways the voters. As far back as Nixon Kennedy debate (I think it was 1960). Radio listeners had Nixon winning the debate while TV viewers gave the nod to Kennedy. It seems we can't field an articulate president, as we care more about substance than the other crap, so our side goes on TV and drops points in the polls to the likes of Clinton and Kerry, what's in it for the Republicans, I mean why f'n bother with it? And then to top that off we get these moderators that are obvious liberals.... pure ********.
_________________
"Old Breed, New Breed, There's not a DAMM bit of
difference so long as it's the MARINE Breed"
- Lt. Gen Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

Semper fi
uuurah
Carry On!!

[Redleg]

I think that its origional purpose was to present both sides of the issues by all parties. Currently, it has evolved to a matter of playing "Chicken", as either side will not commit to not attend.
In days past, the old debates usually turned into a knock down, drag-out affairs. In today's world the debates are tightly controlled by both parties and in most cases the participants are not allowed to directly debate each other. Also the parties make up the rules of order for these debates as they do not want their canididate to receive a knock out-punch.
I agree that current day debates have turned into entertainment events that are rated immediately by the networks (Nitwits) and Boy, do they try to out do with other.
Immediately after the Vice-Presidential debate, CBS brought on a group of so-called undecided voters that rated Edwards as the winner by a wide margin. Clusterpuck! Just give me the address and city of residence of these so-called undecided's and I will tell you within 90% correctness on how they will vote....without a debate.
_________________
FIRE MISSION: Kerry campaign in line of sight.

[Hammer2]

After watching the last two debates, I have concluded that the format is completely useless for any serious, reasoned discussion of issues or exploration of each side's positions. As it stands now the candidate has a choice, he can either skim the surface of one or two issues, or he can make a rapid series of charges knowing his opponent will only have enough time to respond to one or two. It is silly to think the serious issues of today can be decided upon from information presented in this format.

I think it would be better if debates had a format like the following:
First, each candidate is given enough time to lay out the issues and his position, say 20min. each.
Second, each candidate would have time to critique/rebut his opponents position, but only after both candidates have laid out their position. 10 minutes each should be sufficient.
Third, there would be a question period in which the moderator could ask questions of each candidate. 40 minutes here would be plenty.

As voters, we need to demand more of our leaders. The current debate format is ludicrous!
_________________
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" - Thomas Jefferson
"An armed society is a polite society" - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson

[graybeard]

Are we talking about DNCBS or CBS (**** and bull story)? Well Bush may have been tired.
And Cheney took little Johnny Edwards to the wood shed. Johnny exceeded expectations; he didn't even cry!
_________________
Warriors who are elected to public office should no longer be trusted to speak for brothers at arms.

[neverforget]

The way the debates are setup they are perfect for demogogues and populists, both of which Kerry and Edwards are.
_________________
US Army Security Agency
1965-1971

[Doc Jerry]

Debates are created by the media. They are only for the media. Republicans can never really win a debate in their eyes. The spin will also be against Republicans. Therefore, only god knows why they agree to them at all. It's almost always a loser.

Medics, we're there when you need us.

[graybeard]

[jimlarsen]

You're right that the conservatives often come off loosers in a TV debate with the current format. Liberals just seem to have better acting skills than conservatives. Maybe it just comes with being a liberal. Look at how many acters/actresses/entertainers/singers are liberals. But it would be political suicide to refuse to debate and both sides know this. A refusal would be hyped asa fear that people wouln't vote for a candidate if they really knew about them, notwithstanding the fact that the debate doesn't usually tell people much about either candidate.

However, sometimes a conservative can hit a home run on a liberal in this format, because the liberal by nature tries to broaden his/her positions in order to rake in more votes, and hitting directly on a position can cause them to either vacillate or take one or another position, leaving the rest of the broad range undefended. Bush did this in the first debate with respect to what Kerry would really change about the Iraq war if he were CIC, and Bush's comments about global support and first strike finally caused Kerry to say those words we all loved to hear: "Global Test".

Bush really won the first debate on content and on what Kerry gave up, but it was percieved otherwise by many people because Bush was tired, and got tired of hearing baseless charges from Kerry instead of answering the questions, and I think Bush also got discussted at the way Kerry talked about weak points in our defense. The second debate with a shutout for Bush, and we got great quotes like: "Need wood?" and "You can run, but you can't hide."
_________________
-I'm Jim, and I approve what I write, unless it's wrong.
Speak softly and carry a BIG STICK. -T. Roosevelt
Need some WOOD? -G. Bush

[GM Strong]

This goofiness got started in the 1960 campaign as some sort of return to the Lincoln/Douglas debates. They have been a media hype mostly and in my judgement don't amount to much. I'm a political junkie, buy don' t take them to seriously. If I don't watch them, I don't give a rat's patoot. Outside of the one line zingers, what do you remember about any of them???
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69